Chat Control: Incompatible with Fundamental Rights (2022)

Do you understand what would happen to the system if politicians could be prosecuted for proposing laws?

Well, proposed laws would need to pass constitutionality test done by some constitutional court stuffed by legal field experts. If passed, no prosecution can occur.

I could be prosecuted for driving if the result is death of pedestrian for example. I still drive. So why our fucking "servants" are special?

> proposed laws would need to pass constitutionality test done by some constitutional court stuffed by legal field experts. If passed, no prosecution can occur

Congratulations, you re-invented the politburo.

You make a good point, I was not clear at all on the scope of my statement. I am thinking about my own countries constitution. I am not familiar with UKs constitution [1], so I don't really know if "control chat" violates the UK's constitution or not. When I said "nefarious", I was in part referring to undermining a countries constitution, as it is illegal to do so. No, I think that proposing laws that clearly undermine the constitution should be stopped immediately at the time of proposal by the constitution itself. 0-strikes for the proposal. 0-strikes here was not meant to suggest the politician be thrown in jail or anything like that. But, I agree with you in that I was unclear.

Again, my statement above was poorly worded. This is what I meant by prosecuting for nefarious behavior: It is my belief that government behavior would be better kept in check if elect officials were under constant investigation for criminal acts. Society should have gauntness that their nation is being run by good actors. Those running our country should be legally obligated to be working towards making the society that they serve thrive, not using it as a platform for organized crime, influencing the outcomes of their personal investments, or traitorous behavior like ruining a nations economy to empower another nation.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...

politicians don't propose law in the EU. appointed bureaucrats do. politicians get to vote on them eventually, but it'll get passed one way or another.

Then , presumably, you would need another, lesser court, to vet a bill before it reached the constitutional court.

Unfortunately this just creates another layer of abstraction and each layer adds myriad perverse incentives for power brokering and abuse.

It’s a very thorny problem that humanity has yet to solve, and is probably unsolvable until we can solve the “power opens opportunities for abuse of those powers “ problem.

The only ideal form of government is the benign and just king, which of course does not exist.

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

No it is an attempt to bring runaway politicians back to senses.

As for politburo: HR in big corporations already does the task quite well. They just do not like to be called what they are.

>"The only ideal form of government is the benign and just king, which of course does not exist."

This might work in very small society where said king can be quickly brought to senses if he pisses off enough people. Anything larger is fucked up no atter what we do.

>"I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords."

No fuck that

we germans learn in history lessons at school what can happen once a democratic process abolishes enough fundamental rights.

Hungary had that. It didn't really work.

Yeah, meanwhile, you can't buy video games with too much blood in them now because the censorship ship has sailed. Banning the nazi salute and certain types of ideological publishing is treating the symptoms and not the disease. It doesn't fix the issue, and it involves a lot of collateral damage.

Germany has in fact abolished fundamental rights (i.e. free expression) in response to collective fear and guilt about WW2. It's an unforced own goal, just like the USA did to itself after 9/11. The worst possible response. It harms only those who shouldn't be harmed; German nazis will still be nazis quietly in basements, and everyone else in Germany who isn't a nazi is subject to media censorship. It's nonsense.

They already do that now, there's even a defined procedure for it. They just do it after the law has already passed.

that's not what I am talking about.

I talk about that today it's not allowed to abolish democracy which - believe it or not - was allowed and happened 1933.

See e.g. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_9.html

Meh, it’s only a matter of time, assuming that superintlligence is achieved.

It will of course be sock puppeted throughout some hapless shmuck, but societies that are not effectively led by superintellignces will quickly become irrelevant footnotes in a sea of strategic superiority.

But, yeah. F that. I’m not looking forward to evolution. It’s probably going to happen anyway.